Mark S. Holden wrote:

A problem with the idea of having the government buy land subject to storm
surges is it's often the most desirable land in a community because it
has a great view.

When looking at building in a place that has a "great view" you usually
have to wonder how that view came into being. In many cases the spot
has a great view only beacuse everything that normally would have been
in front of it has already fallen off and washed away. How long will it
be until your new construction follows the older stuff down the side?
Are *you* prepared to rebuild/relocate on your own, or will you claim
federal disaster relief funds?

Same with very rich bottom land. Many times, the only reason the topsoil
in a particular area is so good is because every 25-50-10 years or so a
huge flood comes along and deposits new topsoil and a lot of additional
organic matter.

Today we have people building homes in places that, even just a few
years ago, were considered unbuildable because of topography, hydrology,
and stability issues. If someone decides that they can take the risk
and build anyway, they should be certain that they are financially able
to re-build when the inetivable happens, and not rely on a public
handout to rebuild. Look at some of the beach homes on Long Island or
the Outer Banks. How many times have some of these been rebuilt after
being destroyed in a storm? Why should the public be paying to rebuild
these, time after time?

If people are living in a place where a private company will not offer
them flood insurance, maybe that should tell them something.

Here in Seattle many years ago people tried to get permits to build on
hillsides which had been determined to be unstable. The original
builders/owners signed all sorts of waivers and documents indicating
that they understood the risks and were eventually allowed to build. A
few years ago when we got heavier than usual rain for a longer than
usual period some of these hillsides slipped. All of a sudden all these
people who owned these now-useless houses decided that they needed to be
reimbursed at everyone else's expense. I'm sorry, but if you decide to
build in a known slide area, sign a waiver that you understand and take
all responsibility, and then the land later slides, you are on your own;
it's a matter between you and whatever insurance you were able to obtain
for that site.

Build where you want to (within reason), but take responsibility for
your choices. Don't rely on everyone else to rebuild the house you
decided to build in the flood plain, or on the unstable hillside, or in
the historical path of periodic storms. If an area is determined to be
too dangerous to build, and you decide you just *have* to have a little
house there, go ahead and sign the waivers and stuff and build it, but
remember that you are on your own. (When they give out the permit, they
should also hand you a big stack of "Change of Address" cards to mail
out when the address of the place changes from "Hilltop Bluffs Road" to
"Shoreline Drive".)



The two beach front communities I'm familiar with are Stone Harbor NJ, and
Naples Fl. In either town, a beach front lot is worth several million
dollars. It would put a tremendous strain on tax payers because they'd
need to come up with barrels of money while removing the most valuable
land from the tax base. Most owners are not apt to sell voluntarily.

A beach front lot is worth exactly whatever someone is willing to pay
for it. If it's unbuildable it's worth less. If it became known that
people would not be receiving public assistance to rebuild after the
next major storm came through, what would they be worth?

Let people own the land and live there; just make sure that their
liability is commensurate with the risks they are taking, and don't pawn
it off on everyone else.


--
Mike
NAR #70953 - Sr/HPR Level-1 ~ BEMRC - NAR Section #627
NO Junk Email, please! Real email to: amphoto [at] blarg [dot] net.
WANTED: Experienced Kamikaze Pilot